| From: | Mon goose <landsquid@*******.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Rigger 2: Unfair to Trolls / cycle economy |
| Date: | Thu, 23 Oct 1997 02:08:04 PDT |
comment on the economy figures given for motorcycles in Rigger 2? I
notice that a lot of the economy figures have gotten a lot worse from
RBB to Rigger 2. I thought that motorcycles got far better mileage than
cars (since there's less mass to move for a given amount of fuel).
Motorcycles as a rule get poorer fuel economy (per mass) than cars.
Thier engines are designed for power, and higher RPM. Emmisions are
usaully less restrictive, and aerodynamic drag proportionally high.
Higher speed is universally bad for economy, too. :) My medium sized
bike only got about 20 miles/gallon, with a 5 gallon tank. Larger
engined bikes, however, are not much worse- lower RPM at speed with only
marginally higher mass and drag.
That said, unless my metric understanding is quite off, R2
motorcycles have abysmal l/Km economy, even by todays standards, and
huge fuel tanks. However, the two balance out to give realistic ranges.
If you double milage and half fuel, the figures seem more proper to me.
Either that, or I'm converting liters to gallons wrong (about 2 liters
per gallon? If it is 4, the stats are closer to truth). If you don't
take my word, "Cycle World" magazine prints very nice Spec reports, and
they have a web site and are always in (American) library's. They give
metric stats too, IIRC. A motorcycle often only gets about 50-100%
better fuel economy than a car of a similar class, despite bieng less
than half the cars mass and frontal area.
Mongoose / Technological progress is like an ax in the hands
of a psycotic - Einstien
get sucked into -The Vortex- Chicago's shadowland BBS
http://www.concentric.net/~evamarie/srmain.htm
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
